First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next  Last
Heinz Dilemma
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 3/13/13

lordseth23 wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:

Because the likelyhood of the pharmacist being in trouble is less likely than him being in trouble.
You go by what you know and assess the situation based on that, and then act accordingly.
Not doing so is equal to sentencing your wife to certain death.


But the fact of the matter is that you don't know enough about the pharmacist in order to completely disregard the need to compensate him. You should never even think of acting against someone until you fully understand the reasoning behind their actions. Since there is not enough information provided to completely understand the reason for the pharmacist's action, you should give him the benefit of the doubt and place your trust in him.


And he will be compensated later regardless.
But for the time being, we don't know enough, and we cannot let that vague possibility (which most likely ISN'T true), prevent us from saving the life of a human being that will most CERTAINLY die, unless we take this action.

And no, we should not give him the benefit of the doubt. For two reasons:
1. Like I said earlier, the possibility of him actually being in a dire situation is, from what we know, FAR less likely than him NOT being in one.
And we have to make all choices based on what we know, not what may or may not be the case, based on pure, unbased speculation.

and

2. What he said was most likely out of greed. Greed was very much reflected in the way he phrased the denial. Most people would explain their reason for having to sell it for such an outrageous price. He did not, and in addition, phrased his denial in a very greedy fashion, which indicates that his reason for charging so much for it, is based in greed and not in a desperate need for that exact amount of money.

Greed is far more common and overpowering with many people than you might think...
It has caused people all throughout time to do horrible, despicable things. The possibility that he might be doing so, (which, based on observation and likelyhood is bigger than him being in dire need of so much money), is even more reason to not give him the benefit of the doubt.

In the real world you simply cannot base your decisions on whatever possible speculative scenario that may or may not be possible.
That's just not how the world works.
54478 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 3/13/13
Get the general public together and decide as reasonable adults what to do about the apothecary which is obviously guilty of price gouging.

Yes, the apothecary has a right to turning a profit. But not to a 95% profit margin. The public should provide the apothecary with an ultimatum - sell medicines at a fair price or don't sell anything at all and starve. Of course, this presumes that the OP is telling the truth when they say that the drug costs $100 to make. In reality, drugs are very expensive to develop, requiring an exorbitant amounts of capital investments.
38425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 3/14/13

Syndicaidramon wrote:


And he will be compensated later regardless.
But for the time being, we don't know enough, and we cannot let that vague possibility (which most likely ISN'T true), prevent us from saving the life of a human being that will most CERTAINLY die, unless we take this action.

And no, we should not give him the benefit of the doubt. For two reasons:
1. Like I said earlier, the possibility of him actually being in a dire situation is, from what we know, FAR less likely than him NOT being in one.
And we have to make all choices based on what we know, not what may or may not be the case, based on pure, unbased speculation.

and

2. What he said was most likely out of greed. Greed was very much reflected in the way he phrased the denial. Most people would explain their reason for having to sell it for such an outrageous price. He did not, and in addition, phrased his denial in a very greedy fashion, which indicates that his reason for charging so much for it, is based in greed and not in a desperate need for that exact amount of money.

Greed is far more common and overpowering with many people than you might think...
It has caused people all throughout time to do horrible, despicable things. The possibility that he might be doing so, (which, based on observation and likelyhood is bigger than him being in dire need of so much money), is even more reason to not give him the benefit of the doubt.

In the real world you simply cannot base your decisions on whatever possible speculative scenario that may or may not be possible.
That's just not how the world works.


And why should you make these assumptions about him when you don't even know if they are true?
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 3/14/13

lordseth23 wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


And he will be compensated later regardless.
But for the time being, we don't know enough, and we cannot let that vague possibility (which most likely ISN'T true), prevent us from saving the life of a human being that will most CERTAINLY die, unless we take this action.

And no, we should not give him the benefit of the doubt. For two reasons:
1. Like I said earlier, the possibility of him actually being in a dire situation is, from what we know, FAR less likely than him NOT being in one.
And we have to make all choices based on what we know, not what may or may not be the case, based on pure, unbased speculation.

and

2. What he said was most likely out of greed. Greed was very much reflected in the way he phrased the denial. Most people would explain their reason for having to sell it for such an outrageous price. He did not, and in addition, phrased his denial in a very greedy fashion, which indicates that his reason for charging so much for it, is based in greed and not in a desperate need for that exact amount of money.

Greed is far more common and overpowering with many people than you might think...
It has caused people all throughout time to do horrible, despicable things. The possibility that he might be doing so, (which, based on observation and likelyhood is bigger than him being in dire need of so much money), is even more reason to not give him the benefit of the doubt.

In the real world you simply cannot base your decisions on whatever possible speculative scenario that may or may not be possible.
That's just not how the world works.


And why should you make these assumptions about him when you don't even know if they are true?


Because the prize to pay for NOT making them is much too high.
Like I said, life is full of uncertainties. You have to make decisions based on what you know and what is most likely.
38425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 3/14/13

Syndicaidramon wrote:

Because the prize to pay for NOT making them is much too high.
Like I said, life is full of uncertainties. You have to make decisions based on what you know and what is most likely.


How is it much too high? You can't even say that with conviction because you don't know all of the facts, so why even bother making that excuse?
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 3/14/13 , edited 3/14/13

lordseth23 wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:

Because the prize to pay for NOT making them is much too high.
Like I said, life is full of uncertainties. You have to make decisions based on what you know and what is most likely.


How is it much too high? You can't even say that with conviction because you don't know all of the facts, so why even bother making that excuse?


Because the LIKELYHOOD of it being the case is far less than it not being so. You have NO REASON WHAT SO EVER to believe that the pharmacist is in a dire situation.
But you know for CERTAIN that a woman will die.

The chance of the pharmacist not being in a dire situation being so low, combined with the certain death of a woman if the chance is a reason for taking the chance.

If you disagree, then you're saying that the mere possibility (which is completely unfounded and taken out of thin air) is more important than the life of a human being that we KNOW is going to die if we don't make the assumption that the unlikely scenario is most likely true.

Thus, you are actively sentencing that woman to certain death. Just because you didn't want to take a risk that was a almost certain safe bet to begin with.
38425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 3/14/13

Syndicaidramon wrote:

Because the LIKELYHOOD of it being the case is far less than it not being so. You have NO REASON WHAT SO EVER to believe that the pharmacist is in a dire situation.
But you know for CERTAIN that a woman will die.

The chance of the pharmacist not being in a dire situation being so low, combined with the certain death of a woman if the chance is a reason for taking the chance.

If you disagree, then you're saying that the mere possibility (which is completely unfounded and taken out of thin air) is more important than the life of a human being that we KNOW is going to die if we don't make the assumption that the unlikely scenario is most likely true.

Thus, you are actively sentencing that woman to certain death. Just because you didn't want to take a risk that was a almost certain safe bet to begin with.


And you have no reason whatsoever to believe that the pharmacist is not in a dire situation, so why would you take advantage of him to begin with? No life is more important than any other life, so the woman shouldn't be saved at the expense of another life.
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 3/14/13

lordseth23 wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:

Because the LIKELYHOOD of it being the case is far less than it not being so. You have NO REASON WHAT SO EVER to believe that the pharmacist is in a dire situation.
But you know for CERTAIN that a woman will die.

The chance of the pharmacist not being in a dire situation being so low, combined with the certain death of a woman if the chance is a reason for taking the chance.

If you disagree, then you're saying that the mere possibility (which is completely unfounded and taken out of thin air) is more important than the life of a human being that we KNOW is going to die if we don't make the assumption that the unlikely scenario is most likely true.

Thus, you are actively sentencing that woman to certain death. Just because you didn't want to take a risk that was a almost certain safe bet to begin with.


And you have no reason whatsoever to believe that the pharmacist is not in a dire situation, so why would you take advantage of him to begin with? No life is more important than any other life, so the woman shouldn't be saved at the expense of another life.


No, we DO have a reason to believe that he is not in a dire situation. Because there's nothing that implies that he is.
And being in a dire situation, in our countries at least, are far less common per average person than not being in one.
All odds are stacked against it.

And the CERTAINTY of one person's death takes priority over the unfounded, most likely not even close to happening death of someone else.
38425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 3/14/13

Syndicaidramon wrote:

No, we DO have a reason to believe that he is not in a dire situation. Because there's nothing that implies that he is.
And being in a dire situation, in our countries at least, are far less common per average person than not being in one.
All odds are stacked against it.

And the CERTAINTY of one person's death takes priority over the unfounded, most likely not even close to happening death of someone else.


Just because the odds are stacked against it doesn't mean that it is not true. You should never value one life over another life.
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 3/14/13

lordseth23 wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:

No, we DO have a reason to believe that he is not in a dire situation. Because there's nothing that implies that he is.
And being in a dire situation, in our countries at least, are far less common per average person than not being in one.
All odds are stacked against it.

And the CERTAINTY of one person's death takes priority over the unfounded, most likely not even close to happening death of someone else.


Just because the odds are stacked against it doesn't mean that it is not true. You should never value one life over another life.


Actually, that is not true.
If you compare the life of someone who has done much good to the world, say people like, say, Stephen Hawking, and you had to save the life of either him or someone who has done harm to many, many people, like Anders Behring Breivik ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik)... I think it's fairly obvious who is to be valued over the other.



And no. Just because there odds are stacked against it, doesn't mean it's not true. You're completely right about that.
But like I've said time and time again, one has to make decisions based on what one DO know, and on what is likely.
And the fact of the matter is that someone is CERTAIN to die, lest we take the chance that someone else may or may not even be in any risk of dying what so ever. Simply because it's more likely.

In a world where everyone could have it their way, and everyone could be saved, sure. We could have it both ways. But we don't live in that world. We live in this world.
And the reality of this world is that not everyone can be saved. Not everything is for certain. And when things are like that, one has to make the best judgements one can for each situation based on what one knows about the situation.
That's how life is, and you're just gonna have to accept that.
38425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 3/14/13

Syndicaidramon wrote:


Actually, that is not true.
If you compare the life of someone who has done much good to the world, say people like, say, Stephen Hawking, and you had to save the life of either him or someone who has done harm to many, many people, like Anders Behring Breivik ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik)... I think it's fairly obvious who is to be valued over the other.



If this is how you are going to value people, then why would you choose to save the wife when there is the possibility that she could have done more harm to people than the pharmacist has?
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 3/14/13 , edited 3/14/13

lordseth23 wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


Actually, that is not true.
If you compare the life of someone who has done much good to the world, say people like, say, Stephen Hawking, and you had to save the life of either him or someone who has done harm to many, many people, like Anders Behring Breivik ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik)... I think it's fairly obvious who is to be valued over the other.



If this is how you are going to value people, then why would you choose to save the wife when there is the possibility that she could have done more harm to people than the pharmacist has?


Because just like with the possibility of the pharmacist's wife scenario, the likelyhood that she will do such things is far less than the likelyhood that she will.

Besides, one should always save the life of someone who hasn't done anything severely wrong if one can. A person is always innocent until proven guilty.
Which is why one is morally obligated to do what it takes to save the wife.
38425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 3/14/13

Syndicaidramon wrote:

Because just like with the possibility of the pharmacist's wife scenario, the likelyhood that she will do such things is far less than the likelyhood that she will.

Besides, one should always save the life of someone who hasn't done anything severely wrong if one can. A person is always innocent until proven guilty.
Which is why one is morally obligated to do what it takes to save the wife.


So you honestly think we should judge people in this manner and favor the ones that appear to be innocent and trustworthy?

You don't know if the wife has done anything severely wrong, so please don't make that assumption. You have no evidence to prove the pharmacist guilty of being the person that you make him out to be, so he has the right to due process and does not deserve the prejudice that he is receiving from you.
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 3/14/13 , edited 3/14/13

lordseth23 wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:

Because just like with the possibility of the pharmacist's wife scenario, the likelyhood that she will do such things is far less than the likelyhood that she will.

Besides, one should always save the life of someone who hasn't done anything severely wrong if one can. A person is always innocent until proven guilty.
Which is why one is morally obligated to do what it takes to save the wife.


So you honestly think we should judge people in this manner and favor the ones that appear to be innocent and trustworthy?

You don't know if the wife has done anything severely wrong, so please don't make that assumption. You have no evidence to prove the pharmacist guilty of being the person that you make him out to be, so he has the right to due process and does not deserve the prejudice that he is receiving from you.


You're right. I don't know if the wife has done anything severely bad. But the principle of "Innocent until proven guilty" stands. Which is why one must save her. And then find out later if what you say is the case.
For MOST people however, it is not the case. So the odds are stacked against that as well.

And no, the pharmacist do NOT have that right. Because by charging a price that the husband can't pay, the pharmacist is effectively killing the wife by refusing to supply the medicine.
If the wife dies because the pharmacist simply refused to sell the medicine for anything that the husband could actually pay, that would make the pharmacist an indirect murderer.
38425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 3/14/13

Syndicaidramon wrote:


And no, the pharmacist do NOT have that right. Because by charging a price that the husband can't pay, the pharmacist is effectively killing the wife by refusing to supply the medicine.
If the wife dies because the pharmacist simply refused to sell the medicine for anything that the husband could actually pay, that would make the pharmacist an indirect murderer.


No, you can't make that assumption because you don't even know if the drug could save the woman in the first place. The wife could die regardless of whether she is given the medicine or not, so why would you steal it in the first place?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.